The Climate Change Debate Thread (Second Thread)


gandyalf

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 11, 2015
Messages
2,411

gandyalf

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 11, 2015
Messages
2,411

valamhic

Banned
Joined
Jan 31, 2011
Messages
19,844
I don't have a problem with the development of new ideas, new products or the preservation of essential industries from the short term ravages of market forces. I don't have a problem with government warning and acting on dangers which may lie ahead. In my lifetime the government had a huge programme to help citizens cope with nuclear fallout. In most of these cases the cost was low and even where they are higher (such as farm subsidies) the money quickly found its way down to useful employment and purposes. Farmers pay sales tax (VAT) on their supplies.

Tax on fuel was based on the fact that fuel was an inelastic good for which there was no alternative. High fuel usage indicated a high performing economy. Nowadays, taxes on fuel is based on the assumption that either there are alternatives or the good is elastic or both. How can a good like fuel be inelastic in 1989 and elastic in 2019 when there are no alternatives to it? How can an economy perform when there is no fuel to power it? The answer is that the purpose of the carbon tax is to collect money for government to spend. In Ireland the media and voters keep a close eye of each political parties spending proposals and is suspicious of spending plans without tax plans. Climate change is an ideal way around this. Dress it up as saving the planet and off they go. In fact the Irish government has promised to use the carbon tax to increase children's allowance, a clear appeal to the women's vote. It is just possible that after years of hype, failed wind farms and other green extravagance, that voters wake up to the fact that they will be poor. The Yellow Vest protests in France and the rise of popular politics in the USA and Europe may be (just my be) evidence of that happening.
 

valamhic

Banned
Joined
Jan 31, 2011
Messages
19,844
This is not difficult, everybody has to reduce their carbon footprin, every company has to reduce their carbon footprint and every country has to reduce their carbon footprint accordind to EU rules and the Paris accord because:

Worlds Oceans Are Warming Faster, Studies Show, Fueling Storms and Sea Rise | InsideClimate News
Who made the EU rules, was there public consultation? If the EU represented the wishes of the people, in member states, why is Britain going, why is there resistance in Italy and Hungry?

The Paris Accord allows India and China to pump co2 away as long as they like.
 

gandyalf

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 11, 2015
Messages
2,411
Who made the EU rules, was there public consultation? If the EU represented the wishes of the people, in member states, why is Britain going, why is there resistance in Italy and Hungry?

The Paris Accord allows India and China to pump co2 away as long as they like.
Asking the wrong questions as usual.
Every person, every company and every country must do whatever they can to fix this:

Worlds Oceans Are Warming Faster, Studies Show, Fueling Storms and Sea Rise | InsideClimate News

.
 

clearmurk

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 27, 2012
Messages
3,019
ok, but that doesn't answer the question I posed to ol clearmurk, in response to a comment of his,
& the question was -

so what population would a country/state/province need to have, before it's citizens are required to play their part in reducing their emissions ?

have another go at it, if you wish.

re your comment -

you talk about a "fair system" to deal with the "global problem" of anthropogenic Global Warming,
but you don't explain the basis of your proposed "fair system".
I agree with you that there should be a fair system,
& my idea of a fair system is one based on 'emissions per capita'.
the idea of a system on 'emissions per state/country/region ……..' (irrespective of population) as ol clearmurk seems to be proposing is IMO ridiculous,
& could in no way be considered a "fair system".
What is this fixation with population?

I have put forward a fairly simple concept to you, that you are determined to ignore. If you want to fix a problem, you go after the biggest source of that problem first, as that will provide you with the biggest impact.

I don't know why you won't understand that the emissions produced in Ireland are irrelevant on a global scale.
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
45,059

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
45,059
"When climate deniers seek answers to the big questions, they turn to the smartest man in the whole world ... "

[video=youtube;JfA1LpiYk2o]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfA1LpiYk2o[/video]
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
45,059
The difference between Barack Obama’s “war on coal” and Donald Trump’s is that Trump’s war by inaction is three times as destructive.


The coal industry is dying and Trump lied when he said he would revive it. He lied because he went beyond what even coal barons asked for.

But he will keep lying, and the deluded miners of West Virginia will probably keep believing.

Donald Trumps War on Coal
 

mangaire1

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2011
Messages
9,369
What is this fixation with population?

I have put forward a fairly simple concept to you, that you are determined to ignore. If you want to fix a problem, you go after the biggest source of that problem first, as that will provide you with the biggest impact.

I don't know why you won't understand that the emissions produced in Ireland are irrelevant on a global scale.
"What is this fixation with population?"
i'm not fixated with population at all, murk.
I was just responding to your introduction of "population" into the debate, by claiming that those of us inhabiting the region of the planet known as Ireland, were not required to significantly reduce our emissions,
simply because we represented only about 0.01% of the population of the planet,
notwithstanding the fact that we're among the higher emitters per capita on the planet.
I simply asked you, three times I think now, how large a population a region would need to have before it's people were required to contribute to reduced emissions ?
& still no answer !

"I have put forward a fairly simple concept to you, …….."
wrong again, murk.
what you have put forward to me is that we in Ireland do not need to reduce our emissions.

"I don't know why you won't understand that the emissions produced in Ireland are irrelevant on a global scale."
& míheart arís a Mherc.
I completely understand that.
I understand that our population is about 0.01% of the global population,
& that our greenhouse gas emissions exceeds our population % by a factor of perhaps 2 or 3 or even more.
 

Turbinator

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2012
Messages
1,751


The coal industry is dying and Trump lied when he said he would revive it. He lied because he went beyond what even coal barons asked for.

But he will keep lying, and the deluded miners of West Virginia will probably keep believing.

Donald Trumps War on Coal
LOL - more "predictions" from the crowd who have got it wrong every time when it comes to their climate "predictions"
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
45,059


Denied: The rise and fall of climate contrarianism: Amazon.co.uk: Richard Black, Richard Benyon MP: 9781912119950: Books

Free on Kindle.

Climate change won’t be that serious…’ – ‘the lights will go out if we use renewable energy…’ – ‘climate science is bent…’. For a decade, contrarians controlled large swathes of the UK’s political and media discourse on energy and climate change.
But their time is coming to an end. As the record for the warmest year gets broken time after time, the cost of clean energy tumbles and public support for tackling climate change stays high, the lights are indeed going out for Britain’s contrarian elite, in both politics and the media.

In Denied, the first book to take a serious look at the history of the UK’s climate contrarians, former BBC science and environment correspondent Richard Black outlines how they and their canonical arguments came to such prominence – and how they lost.

"This work is of first-rate importance because it exposes the climate change denial industry in all its moral horror. It should be read attentively – in particular, by climate denying politicians on the political right who have done so much damage." Peter Oborne, Political Columnist, Daily Mail

"Richard Black brilliantly articulates what a spectacular waste of ink and intellectual energy the UK climate contrarian movement has been. This is the story of how some of the most well-connected, articulate, and arrogant men in Britain lost their long, pointless and ultimately dangerous battle with the evidence of man-made climate change. Beautifully told and thoroughly researched by Richard Black, an experienced journalist, and therefore a natural sceptic, who can spot BS when he sees it." Tom Clarke, Science Editor, ITV News

"As one of thousands of British scientists working with the reality of climate change day by day, it’s been extraordinary and rather dispiriting to see the power and influence that a tiny number of elite contrarians has wielded in the media for so long – sowing misinformation, undermining what is beyond reasonable doubt, distorting public opinion, appealing to unreason and displaying irrational optimism. However; as Richard Black relates in this compelling account, when prejudice comes face-to-face with overwhelming evidence, there can be only one winner. Thankfully so, because the threat posed by climate change and the challenge of responding to it are far too great to allow serious, evidence-based discourse to be derailed by polemic." Dr Emily Shuckburgh, Head of Data Science and Deputy Head of Polar Oceans, British Antarctic Survey

"This meticulously-researched demolition of the claims made by climate change contrarians should be the final nail in the coffin of their ill-founded arguments. Richard Black, one of the few people who both understands the detail of climate science and can write about it with crystal clarity, has written a brilliant analysis of how and why too much of the media fell for the contrarians’ claims and how, at last, the sheer strength of the evidence is consigning them to irrelevance." Robin Lustig, journalist, former presenter of The World Tonight, BBC Radio Four

"With Trump in the White House, Bolsonaro in stewardship of the Amazon, and fossil fuel and car giants being seven out of the 10 wealthiest corporations, the people who stand in the way of solving the Earth’s climate crisis are in control of large parts of the globe. This isn’t just a battle of ideas. But ideas have been critical in shaping humanity’s response to climate change. Richard Black brilliantly exposes how the media has adopted tropes and framing conjured by climate deniers, contrarians and defeatists and used them to shape reporting. ’Denied’ is essential reading for everyone who believes stopping runaway climate change is the challenge of our time - and understands the centrality of the media in shaping public perceptions of the scale and urgency of the crisis and the credibility of solutions." Liz Hutchins, Campaigns Director, Friends of the Earth
 

gandyalf

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 11, 2015
Messages
2,411
This is not difficult, everybody has to reduce their carbon footprin, every company has to reduce their carbon footprint and every country has to reduce their carbon footprint accordind to EU rules and the Paris accord because:

Worlds Oceans Are Warming Faster, Studies Show, Fueling Storms and Sea Rise | InsideClimate News
There are lots of articles out there about this new paper, I like this one:

"Two things strike me about this. First, the increase in the speed of ocean heat content rise is quite large, going from 2.8 ZJ/yr to 9.5 ZJ/yr, three and a half times as fast. Second, it’s probably not a coincidence that the year 1990 is the same at which sea level accelerates. Since thermal expansion is one of the root causes of sea level rise, this is to be expected."
Tamino.


Sea Heat | Open Mind

So, we really need to go cold Turkey on the fossil fuels as quick as possible.

I know. It's easier said than done, but "every fraction of a degree makes a difference".
 

RasherHash

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
24,550
This is not difficult, everybody has to reduce their carbon footprint...



[url="https://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/global-warming/solutions/global-warming-...s: Reduce Emissions | Union of Concerned Scientists[/url]

.
If everybody has to reduce why are the high priest and priestess of agw, Gore and Robinson making carbon footprints the size of half a rainforest while demanding the small people pay through the nose with massive tax hikes?

None of these 'leaders'(including golden socks) take agw in any way serious :sneaky:
 
Top